If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It depends of course on the fuel burn rate at the specified speed, and engine/boat efficiencies (see my calcs and fuel consumption graphs above), but hey, if you can afford 800 horses you can probably afford to Carbon offset!

Anyway, not sure how far a car would go on water, we are talking about boats here - horses for courses! Perhaps thats your answer, Carbon footprint of a horse is likely much less than a car and both can be used on the road! So, sell the car and buy a horse! But if you want to travel on water..... (Raggies to stay clear of this one!).

A large 67ft twin engined boat may burn say 300 litres per hour, that equates to 811kg CO2 per hour! Would I buy one if I could afford to run one? Yep....

The car number was just to compeare/scale it. You know in Norway we have ice on the lakes!

Easyest way to calculate is fulconsumption l/h *2.7kg co2/liter If you know the boat speed you divide!

Unless you have an exhaust leakage the CO2 level in the air is about 0.03%.....

Mmmm 0.03% as you may know is 300ppm (that is 3 hundredths of 1%) - the estimated atmospheric concentration around the year 1910! Although I am sure it ranges, I would use 0.0375 or even 0.04, that is 375-400ppm nowadays!

Anyway, we have deviated from the OP - so no more input from me in this regard - perhaps you should start a new Climate Change thread, should provoke an interesting debate between power and sail!

CO2 - another question.

Thank you for your informative replies to my previous question. May I try another?
Not boating, therefore I shall understand if it is ignored.
Do people contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere simply by breathing/processing food?
Reason for query - has third world population increase caused any of the extra gas.

The simple answer (best one I can give) is that breathing and eating food just recycles CO2 already in the air, it doesn't change the level up or down. The CO2 is going through a constant cycle of being fixed (as carbon in cellulose, protein, etc.) by plants then released as CO2, CH4 etc by animals when the plant's eaten. I don't know whether the vast number of humans on the planet means that there are more animals alive today than ever before but given they all eat food that's ultimately come from plants, the equilibrium level in the atmosphere shouldn't have changed. Although maybe the recycling is happening more quickly?

Felling forests (that lock away large amounts of carbon) will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 so a larger human population undoubtedly has had an effect. Someone might have a reference as to how big this affect is? All those humans contain carbon as well - how much carbon is locked up in the human population!?

The vast majority of the 35% (or so) increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times is undoubtedly down to 'new' (or is that old?) CO2 entering the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuel. The carbon in oil, gas and coal has been locked away from the atmosphere for millions of years meaning that prior to about 350 million years ago atmospheric CO2 must have been much higher than it is today.